Views: 6<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles\u00a0<\/b>page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Premillennialism pervades the vast majority of Protestant churches, including the old \u201cmainline\u201d denominations, independent groups, the various Pentecostal sects, and the newer \u201ccommunity\u201d churches. This phenomenon is more than \u201ca doctrine.\u201d It is a system of theology<\/strong> which the adherents impose like a template over the Bible and through which they view every passage. Several variants of this theological system are extant, but the one constant is belief in a material, earthly, political kingdom of Christ that will last for one thousand years (the \u201cmillennial\u201d part of premillennialism<\/em>, the \u201cpre\u201d part referring to their contention that Christ will come again immediately before<\/strong> He establishes His millennial reign).<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cHistorical\u201d premillennialism is the \u201cstandard\u201d version. The \u201cdeluxe\u201d version is \u201cdispensational\u201d premillennialism, which includes the above, but also includes such doctrines as the \u201crapture\u201d and the \u201cgreat tribulation.\u201d It is called \u201cdispensational\u201d because it divides all of time into seven mythical \u201cdispensations.\u201d By their calculations, we are in dispensation six (\u201cthe church age\u201d), awaiting number seven (\u201cthe millennial kingdom age\u201d). Protestants in the USA are almost universally dispensational premillennialists. We do not question their sincerity, but sincerity of believe does not convert religious error into doctrinal truth.<\/span><\/p>\n Some may be thinking that members of the Lord\u2019s church are not in danger of succumbing to this system of error, so we need not study it. They could not be more wrong for several reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n Premillennialism is based upon several misapprehensions about the kingdom of Christ, to a few of which I now invite the reader\u2019s attention.<\/span><\/p>\n Church-Kingdom Dichotomy<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A major fallacy of premillennial theology is its dichotomy between the Lord\u2019s church and the earthly state of His kingdom, although the New Testament repeatedly identifies them as one and the same. Jesus said:<\/span><\/p>\n And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mat. 16:18\u201319).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus promised to build His church and, in the same breath, promised to give Peter the \u201ckeys of the kingdom.\u201d We can hardly imagine the Lord\u2019s promising to build one thing, only to give Peter the keys to something entirely different. (These keys would have been utterly useless in Peter\u2019s hands if they were for a kingdom that still has not come, per premillennial doctrine.) The fulfillment of this promise is generally (and I believe correctly) understood to have been fulfilled when Peter led in announcing the terms of salvation on Pentecost, which resulted in the Lord\u2019s adding of obedient believers to the church (Acts 2:36\u201341, 47). After thus using the \u201ckeys\u201d to admit the Jews, he then used them to open the kingdom\u2019s doors to the Gentiles (Acts 10:47\u201348; 11:11\u201318).<\/span><\/p>\n The church at Colossae is described as the kingdom of Christ into which its members had been<\/strong> \u201ctranslated\u201d (Col. 1:13). The Hebrews author described the church as \u201ca kingdom that cannot be shaken\u201d (Heb. 12:23, 28). John wrote to the \u201cseven churches that are in Asia\u201d that the Lord has \u201cmade us to be a kingdom\u201d (Rev. 1:4, 6). In the same context he said that he was at that time<\/strong> (i.e., in the first century A.D.) a partaker with them \u201cin the kingdom\u201d (v. 9). These are only a few of the many statements that identify the church of Christ as His kingdom.<\/span><\/p>\n The premillennial denial of the church\/kingdom identity implies that the blood-purchased church of the Lord was\/is little more than an afterthought in the mind of God, arranged spontaneously to substitute for the alleged failed establishment of their expected earthly kingdom. The \u201cGod\u201d of premillennialism is thus seen to be so impotent that He is unable to anticipate the rejection of His Son and His earthly kingdom ambitions. Of course, the God of Truth knew what they would do to His Son (read Isa. 53), and, as seen below, He had no earthly kingdom plans. The church was no sudden substitute for some greater royal institution\u2014it was<\/strong> the plan and the kingdom. Jesus built it despite His cruel rejection and murder by the Jews (Mat. 16:18).<\/span><\/p>\n Earthly Kingdom Ambitions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A bedrock doctrine of premillennialism is that Jesus came to establish an earthly, political kingdom. There can be little doubt that the Jews generally interpreted the kingdom prophecies in this way. They had chafed as a subject people for centuries, and they longed for the restoration of a glorious and powerful kingdom in the likeness of David\u2019s or Solomon\u2019s. They expected the prophesied Messiah to be the king over such a realm.<\/span><\/p>\n However, their interpretation of the prophets was mere wishful thinking and represented eisegesis <\/strong>(the interpretation of a text [as of the Bible] by reading into it one\u2019s own ideas) rather than exegesis <\/strong>(critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of Scripture). Jesus never had any such kingdom plans or ambitions, which fact the Lord demonstrated by both His teachings and His refusal to participate in any such matters. The Lord attracted crowds of thousands and could likely have led a political revolt of considerable consequence, even without miraculous help. With the miraculous aid at his disposal, He could have utterly and immediately crushed Rome and every lesser power. The materialistic Jews once sought to force a crown upon Him, but he refused it and fled rather than accept such (John 6:15). Instead of seeking to overthrow Rome (as the Jews falsely accused [Luke 23:2]), He told the people to \u201crender unto Caesar the things that are Caesar\u2019s\u201d (Mark 12:17).<\/span><\/p>\n When the officers and soldiers came to arrest Jesus in Gethsemane, Peter sought to defend Him with a sword, but Jesus forbade it (Mat. 26:49\u201352). Has it never occurred to the premillennialists that, if the Lord had intended to establish a political kingdom, all of the demons of Hell could not have prevented His doing so, just as His death could not prevent the establishment of His church (Mat. 16:18) and His enemies could not have taken His life had He not determined to \u201clay it down\u201d Himself (John 10:18)?<\/span><\/p>\n He could have called more legions of angels than Rome had soldiers, had he sought an earthly domain (Mat. 26:53). Do these folk never ponder the fact that the murderous Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, not because He wanted<\/strong> to be their earthly king, but because He refused<\/strong> to have anything to do with the kind of kingdom the premillennialists still envision? What part of Jesus\u2019 statement to Pilate do they not understand?<\/span><\/p>\n My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence (John 18:36).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I have often wondered if advocates of this theology are even aware that this statement is in the New Testament.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus Failed in His Kingdom Plans<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The premillennial averment that Jesus failed to establish a physical earthly kingdom at His First Coming implies that its establishment will be sometime in the future (at His Second Coming, they allege). First, surely they do not understand the gravity of this accusation\u2014that the Son of God failed<\/strong> to do what God sent Him to do and what He Himself came to do. Furthermore, it is only fair to ask them how they can have any confidence that the Lord will be able to do the second time that which He was not able (they assert) to do the first time?<\/span><\/p>\n They must ignore numerous statements from the Lord and other inspired men to believe that He failed. All the passages already cited, indicating that people were in the kingdom in the first century, necessitate the conclusion that He established His kingdom at His first appearance. Moreover, before His self-sacrifice on Calvary He told the apostles that some of them would be alive to see His kingdom come with power (Mark 9:1).<\/span><\/p>\n Clearly and specifically, Jesus tied the time of the beginning of His kingdom to the lifetime of His contemporaries. If it did not begin while the apostles (excepting Judas Iscariot) lived, then Jesus either knowingly lied or was grossly misinformed, either of which disqualify Him as the sinless Savior of mankind. However, if He told the Truth, then the kingdom was established in the first century<\/strong>\u2014just as Jesus said it would be (and as various passages demonstrate that it was). All must choose one of the following mutually exclusive propositions:<\/span><\/p>\n Numerous times Jesus stated that His aim in coming the first time was to do His Father\u2019s will and to teach His Father\u2019s doctrine (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:28; 14:10; cf. Mat. 26:39). If He failed in this aim, He again lied to His Father as He prayed; \u201cI glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do<\/strong>\u201d (John 17:4, emph. DM). He either did or did not succeed in what His Father sent Him to do. The premillennialist argues that He failed, which makes our Savior both a failure and a liar (twice over). No, He did not fail, He did not lie, and He was not mistaken.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The theological system of Premillennialism is a prime illustration of the uninspired (but true) proverb: \u201cPeople are willing to believe almost anything in religion as long as it is not in the Bible.\u201d The collection of doctrines that comprises it is most definitely not in the Bible. The three doctrines of the theological system discussed above are fundamental to the entire system. The remainder of this multifaceted, almost science-fictional system collapses with their removal.<\/span><\/p>\n If there were no other reason to reject premillennialism, one should do so just because it is false. However, it is not \u201cmerely\u201d false, but fatally<\/strong> false on the grounds that it:<\/span><\/p>\n Let no one pronounce premillennialism a mere innocent and inconsequential \u201cdoctrine.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n [Note: <\/strong>I wrote this MS, and it originally appeared in the January 2003 issue of The Gospel Journal, <\/em>a 36-page monthly of which I was editor at the time.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution:<\/strong> From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 6[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles\u00a0page.] Introduction Premillennialism pervades the vast majority of Protestant churches, including the old \u201cmainline\u201d denominations, independent groups, the various Pentecostal sects, and the newer \u201ccommunity\u201d churches. This phenomenon is more than \u201ca doctrine.\u201d…<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n